SITE SEARCH

You are currently viewing this page as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, ask questions, educate others, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many, many other features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join SomaliNet forums today! Please note that registered members with over 50 posts see no ads whatsoever! Are you new to SomaliNet? These forums with millions of posts are just one section of a much larger site. Just visit the front page and use the top links to explore deep into SomaliNet oasis, Somali singles, Somali business directory, Somali job bank and much more. Click here to login. If you need to reset your password, click here. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.

TEHRAN, Iran - The deputy commander of Iran's air force said Wednesday that plans have been drawn up to bomb Israel if the Jewish state attacks Iran, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

The announcement came amid rising tensions in the region, with the United States calling for a new round of U.N. sanctions against Iran over its disputed nuclear program and Israeli planes having recently overflown, and perhaps even attacked, Iranian ally Syria.

On Sunday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the international community should prepare for the possibility of war in the event that Iran obtains atomic weapons, although he later appeared to soften that statement.

"We have drawn up a plan to strike back at Israel with our bombers if this regime (Israel) makes a silly mistake," Gen. Mohammad Alavi was quoted as telling Fars in an interview

Megatron, Iran would have already been attacked if it did not speak in such tough rhetoric.

Tough rhetoric is a deterrence. History is rife with instances where tough rhetoric saved the day from the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviets backed down to unwavering tough American rhetoric (even though America's knees were buckling) and the Vietnam War where Kissinger got the N. Vietnamese to agree to the peace accords of '72 by spreading fear of Nixon's "craziness", enough to bomb Hanoi with nuclear weapons even though America would never have been able to pull such a stunt.

Tough rhetoric is a deterrence especially if backed by tough resolve which in this case is Iran's unwillingness to divert from its national interests in obtaining nuclear fission for "energy" purposes.

It forces the other side to exhaust all else before testing to see whether the tough rhetoric is backed by action or not. The consequence could be deadly which is why Israeli has not already struck Iran as they did to Syria.

Last edited by DawladSade on Wed Sep 19, 2007 5:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.

WASHINGTON, Sept 19 (Reuters) - The White House sharply criticized Iran on Wednesday for threatening to bomb Israel if attacked by the Jewish state, saying such comments were "totally unprovoked and unnecessary" and seemed provocative.

The deputy commander for Iranian air force operations was quoted by the semi-official Fars News Agency as saying that a plan of retaliation was being drawn up in the event Israel attacked Iran.

"I won't ascribe motives to them but it does seem provocative. I would tell you that Israel doesn't want war with its neighbors," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters.

"I can't tell you why someone in Iran would say something like that about Israel. It's totally unprovoked and unnecessary," she added. She had earlier called the Iranian comments "unhelpful."

Perino also reiterated U.S. calls for Iran to comply with Western demands that it stop enriching uranium.

"What the world has asked for is for Iran to comply with its Security Council obligations to stop its movement toward the nuclear weapons," she said.

"And that way, the people of Iran, who can do a lot better than the government that they have now, would be able to prosper and have a free and good life."

Some analysts have speculated that Israel, a close U.S. ally, could seek to stage a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, where Israel and Western nations believe Tehran is developing technology to build bombs.

You make a SERIOUS point there, D. Pretty hard to refute, though I feel that they've delivered plenty of rhetoric as of late. Enough to maybe not go where dude went now. But still, the U.S and others engage in it, so why not Iran ?

"We have come up with a plan that in the event of possible foolishness by this regime, Iranian bombers can carry out an attack in retaliation against Israeli soil," Alavi said, quoted by the Fars news agency.

"In addition to our missiles, whose range covers the whole soil of this regime, we can attack them with our fighter jets and respond to any attack -- an unlikely event -- with an air attack on their soil.

Megatron I also agree with what you brought. Iran's quest for nuclear weapons did not start now, but it entered the limelight for a reason. Ahmedenajad cannot keep his mouth shut or knows how to play the propaganda war. This nuclear quest existed under Khatami but that guy was a shrewd politician who was also admired by the world. When Khatami came to visit the U.N last year, even Harvard and Yale were some of the institutions that fought to get him as a speaker for their schools. I remember reading Harvard won out because when the Federal government refused to give him security outside of the U.N head-quarters, Harvard contacted the state to step in and provide security.

Yet Ahmedanajad is devoid of any political shrewdness. He is an embarrassment to the great Iranian nation and is the chief reason why events have led itself to this point.

Onr of the arguments I hert frrequently (though I don't agree with personally) is that the Iranian government is not rationale, and will actually use nuclear weapons believing that there will be divine intervention to ensure a favorable outcome. I think this is nonsense, and that Ahmedinijad (like his non-Muslim role model, Hugo Chavez) enjoys in engaging in provocative rhetoric for the sake of getting international headlines and stirring the pot.

[Onr of the arguments I hert frrequently (though I don't agree with personally) is that the Iranian government is not rationale, and will actually use nuclear weapons believing that there will be divine intervention to ensure a favorable outcome.]

The Iranian government is rational; it never used nuclear weapons. The American government isn't rational because it has a history of using nuclear, chemical, biological, etc weapons.

The US employment of two nuclear warheads was COMPLETELY rationale. You have to analyze that in terms of time and place. You may disagree on ethical grounds about the employment, that is an area where well meaning people can disagree, but it would be foolish to argue that something which clearly can be argued rationally wa irraltional.

The employment of biological weapons was in the 19th century, hardly worth commenting on at this point. And the US employment of chemical weapons was also EXTREMELY constrained and conducted within the limits of what was permitted by the laws of land warfare such as they were.

Your arguments that consistently try to put the US in a bad light are weak and never consistent with time and place. In general, the US has been a force for positive global development, a FACT you refuse to acknowledge, because it means a competing system is superior to that which you favor on emotional grounds.